Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of environmental DNA techniques and increased genome sequencing of microbial diversity, combined with detailed study of cellular characters, has consistently led to the reexamination of our understanding of the tree of life. This has challenged many of the definitions of taxonomic groups, especially higher taxonomic ranks such as eukaryotic kingdoms. The Fungi is an example of a kingdom which, together with the features that define it and the taxa that are grouped within it, has been in a continual state of flux. In this article we aim to summarize multiple lines of data pertinent to understanding the early evolution and definition of the Fungi. These include ongoing cellular and genomic comparisons that, we will argue, have generally undermined all attempts to identify a synapomorphic trait that defines the Fungi. This article will also summarize ongoing work focusing on taxon discovery, combined with phylogenomic analysis, which has identified novel groups that lie proximate/adjacent to the fungal clade-wherever the boundary that defines the Fungi may be. Our hope is that, by summarizing these data in the form of a discussion, we can illustrate the ongoing efforts to understand what drove the evolutionary diversification of fungi.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".